How is it different then maintaining any other large complex aircraft via an established approved maintenance program? Commercial operators like Airlines spend big bucks. Erikson has done well with the Sky Crane.I doubt seriously if any commercial operator will spend the maint time or $$ to take care of the airframe correctly, this could be a bummer for all concerned.
if they are not making money they will defer maintenance. and defer...and defer....NOT GOOD.Why would a commercial entity buy an airframe and not maintain it?
airlines and even erikson have good cash flow, the airlines cant defer maint. as they fly people, but commercial operators MUST make money and have a good cash flow, or they can and do defer maintenance, which they do more than they should do , in my opinion. deferring maintenance is NOT a good thing for a helicopter.How is it different then maintaining any other large complex aircraft via an established approved maintenance program? Commercial operators like Airlines spend big bucks. Erikson has done well with the Sky Crane.
airlines and even erikson have good cash flow
Interesting. The Army Aviation Heritage Foundation maintains it's UH-1s and AH-1s per Army Phase Maintenance program. We are coming out of a 150 hrs phase on our chapter Cobra and I was shocked how deep we had to go into some systems that worked just fine. Was also surprised they do a pre phase test flight. I don't recall a pre maintenance check flight in Navy fixed wing.So I've actually looked into this -
The surplus UH-60A and CH-47D Chinook make up a good deal of the aircraft being released from military service and sold to commercial operators. So far these have been very successful programs with operators moving fairly quick from long term storage to operating on revenue generating ops.
The FAA issues Restricted Category airworthiness certificates. The operations manuals are approved as is training and maintenance programs.
I can tell you that the commercial maintenance programs are far less operationally invasive and tend to be more "on condition". It is widely understood that the military operational phased based maintenance programs on these aircraft are actually hard on the aircraft - and moving to "on condition" programs for commercial ops, as advised by Boeing and Sikorsky in this case have been quite successful. Amazing - not contantly pulling panels and inspecting or replacing everything based on military requirements results in less availability - even though military programs are geared to "go to war readiness".
So "fly it until inspection or indications say you should not" seems to be successful with commercial operators flying UH-60A's and CH-47D's - no wonder they are selling by the dozens.
Interesting. The Army Aviation Heritage Foundation maintains it's UH-1s and AH-1s per Army Phase Maintenance program. We are coming out of a 150 hrs phase on our chapter Cobra and I was shocked how deep we had to go into some systems that worked just fine. Was also surprised they do a pre phase test flight. I don't recall a pre maintenance check flight in Navy fixed wing.